Mage Armor provides an armor bonus, which does not stack with any other armor bonuses.
Mage armor provides an "armor" bonus to AC. That's its type, and bonuses of the same type don't stack. So mage armor would stack with shields, Dex bonus, and the deflection bonus from Smite Evil, but you only take the highest between the armor bonus from scale mail and the armor bonus from mage armor.
The only exceptions are dodge bonuses, racial bonuses, untyped bonuses, and inherent bonuses. Those stack with themselves.
In you example, it doesn't stack with the scale mail but does with shield, dex and smite bonuses.
There is one time that I can think of where Mage Armor would work to a PC's advantage, and that would be if you are going up against a BBEG Caster. It would raise the Touch AC for your PC.
Mage armor does not add to your Touch AC. It does add AC against incorporeal attacks.
There is one time that I can think of where Mage Armor would work to a PC's advantage, and that would be if you are going up against a BBEG Caster. It would raise the Touch AC for your PC.
Mage armor is still an armor bonus, so it doesn't raise your normal touch AC. However, because it is a force effect, it does help your AC against incorporeal touch attacks, which regular armor doesn't.
EDIT: I thought I was the ninja here...
Thanks. Also my players bring up a good point. The spell creates a shell around the person, so the rp bit doesn't go very well with the rules. Any suggestions on how to solve this?
Play it as written. Otherwise, you get ridiculous things like a 27 AC at level 3.
Thanks. Also my players bring up a good point. The spell creates a shell around the person, so the rp bit doesn't go very well with the rules. Any suggestions on how to solve this?There is nothing to solve.
Mage Armor is still armor (although via a spell instead of being regular armor).
Wearing 2 chain shirts doesn't increase your armor class above wearing 1 chain shirt.
Wearing 2 +1 mithral chain shirts does not increase your armor class above wearing 1 +1 mithral chain shirt.
Armor bonuses do not stack.If they press hard on the rp option, just point out that the Mage Armor is trying to occupy the same exact place as the paladin's armor, and fails to materialize.
Basically this. Wearing leather under a chain shirt under full plate doesn't give you 15 AC.
Mage Armor cast on a full plate wearing person gives the small situational benefit of adding AC when you face incorporeal creatures.
From the way he said that, his players view it like a forcefield. That description is given no where in the spell description though so I don't know where they got it.
|
I've always considered mage armor not stacking with real, PHYSICAL armor being completely retarded.
It's a magical force effect that absorbs incoming hits. Its doesn't just stop working when you put on a leather jacket. Likewise, the leather jacket doesn't cease to exist just because their is a magical force effect blocking attacks.
I always consider Mage armor or similar force effect 'Armor' to stack with regular armor, just as a magical force effect armor enchantment on a piece of armor stacks with the armors AC bonus.
A +4 chainshirt is EXACTLY THE SAME as a chainshirt and mage armor together. Or a chainshirt and bracers of armor +4.
The rules as they are are nonsensical.
This very argument would lead to multiple worn armour stacking!
'My chain shirt didn't just disappear when I donned my full plate! So they should both work and give me a +13 armour bonus!'
Is that how you rule it in your campaign? If not, why not? It's exactly the same argument you're using to let Mage armour stack with worn armour!
I've always considered mage armor not stacking with real, PHYSICAL armor being completely retarded.
It's a magical force effect that absorbs incoming hits. Its doesn't just stop working when you put on a leather jacket. Likewise, the leather jacket doesn't cease to exist just because their is a magical force effect blocking attacks.
I always consider Mage armor or similar force effect 'Armor' to stack with regular armor, just as a magical force effect armor enchantment on a piece of armor stacks with the armors AC bonus.
A +4 chainshirt is EXACTLY THE SAME as a chainshirt and mage armor together. Or a chainshirt and bracers of armor +4.
The rules as they are are nonsensical.
Using the above analogy, would you allow two suits of chainmail to stack with each other if layered? How about leather under full-plate? If not, why not? Why are you making a special exception for mage-armour?
The "force field" just permeates the armor you are wearing. Normally this is inconsequential, but it does provide a barrier against incorporeal attacks. There's your flavor.
If it's actually a "magical force that absorbs incoming hits" that is not mage armor. It's some sort of effect that provides DR or a deflection bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks. Also my players bring up a good point. The spell creates a shell around the person, so the rp bit doesn't go very well with the rules. Any suggestions on how to solve this?Where exactly is the "rp" problem?
It's the most clever form of a "rp" problem, exploiting flavor text to try to gain a numerical advantage for your character ...
The only exceptions are dodge bonuses, racial bonuses, untyped bonuses, and inherent bonuses. Those stack with themselves.
And circumstance bonuses, as long as they arise from different circumstances.
As to the RP circumstances, he is correct that by fluff this acts as some sort of force shield or bubble. From the spell's description:
An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC.
What form exactly the field takes is up to the GM\player, I'd say. Personally, I'd assume that it's just a flexible layer of force that directly surrounds the person's body, so it wouldn't really interfere with the person's ability to interact with the environment.
|
|
The only exceptions are dodge bonuses, racial bonuses, untyped bonuses, and inherent bonuses. Those stack with themselves.And circumstance bonuses, as long as they arise from different circumstances.
OFF TOPIC:
Is there any central reference/source for these stacking rules? I always worry I'm missing one of the ones that does stack, but I haven't found a good table or list summarizing to which I can refer when in doubt.
@Joe M.
Bonus Types: Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
I should add that inherent bonus DOES NOT STACKS and its written clearly enough :
Grant a creature a +1 inherent bonus to an ability score. Two to five wish spells cast in immediate succession can grant a creature a +2 to +5 inherent bonus to an ability score (two wishes for a +2 inherent bonus, three wishes for a +3 inherent bonus, and so on). Inherent bonuses are instantaneous, so they cannot be dispelled. Note: An inherent bonus may not exceed +5 for a single ability score, and inherent bonuses to a particular ability score do not stack, so only the best one applies.
@Avh, I know you were talking about stacking but I love to point this one out: they can't go above +5 except where they do. They can go to +6 through class abilities.
Yeah, with a sorcerer (abyssal if I recall correctly). That's the only exception I know of.
There is also the section here
Combining Magic Effects
Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place:
Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don't stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).
Different Bonus Types: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn't have a type stacks with any bonus.
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.
Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.
One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.
Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as spells that remove the subject's ability to act. Mental controls that don't remove the recipient's ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.
Spells with Opposite Effects: Spells with opposite effects apply normally, with all bonuses, penalties, or changes accruing in the order that they apply. Some spells negate or counter each other. This is a special effect that is noted in a spell's description.
Instantaneous Effects: Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target.
I've always considered mage armor not stacking with real, PHYSICAL armor being completely retarded.
It's a magical force effect that absorbs incoming hits. Its doesn't just stop working when you put on a leather jacket. Likewise, the leather jacket doesn't cease to exist just because their is a magical force effect blocking attacks.
I always consider Mage armor or similar force effect 'Armor' to stack with regular armor, just as a magical force effect armor enchantment on a piece of armor stacks with the armors AC bonus.
A +4 chainshirt is EXACTLY THE SAME as a chainshirt and mage armor together. Or a chainshirt and bracers of armor +4.
The rules as they are are nonsensical.
You can always change the flavor of a spell so that it makes sense, but rules are rules, and should not be changed to fit flavor, or it can cause balance issues.
Also, it's magic.
Logic, and magic, don't really mix that well.
"I'm a wizard; I ain't gotta explain ****."
Here's a way to look at it ... it says the shield surrounds the subject, not his stuff. The spell creates a skintight field, UNDER your armor and clothes. If your armor is softer than the shield (lower armor bonus), then the shield may the hit. If your armor is harder than the shield, the hit never gets through the armor for the shield to worry about.
Since loss of HP does not necessarily indicate physical injury, it works perfectly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like you want a custom resilient sphere that is allowed to be moved.
Or... can you make a floating disk, stand on it, then put a sphere on the disk, and command the disk to move your sphere around? Sphere only states people can't move it. (Which, makes me think non-humanoids could? Maybe just outsiders?)